According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity bends or warps space-time. this is because the gravitons, or gravity waves, contain no mass and therefore exert their force over large distances with infinite speed. in other words, light from a star that passes by a large body, like our sun, could appear in a place that it is not. the gravity from the sun would bend space time so that even though light may seem to follow a striaght path, it is actually following a curved one. the gravity of large bodies doesnt affect places lightyears away at this magnitude because gravity's force diminishes as it gets farther away from its source. this has led many physicists to believe that if one went in a straight line, they would eventualy end up at the same place after a period of time. this is because all the matter in the universe has warped space time so much, that space time would appear like the earth or sphere. (as if looked through a 2d space) i would agree that at some point in time, all the matter in the universe was very hot and dense. (the big bang) let us go through what i think will happen throughout the expansion of the universe. first, the big bang would take place obviously. next, like it has been found, galaxies that were formed would expand from the point of the big bang. since there is much evidence to say that gravity will not stop this expansion and conclude in an event known as the big crunch, it is logical to say that the universe would continue to excpand forever. however, since the matter in the universe bends space time so much, they would eventually meet either halfway around the universe, or back at were the big bang took place. this wouold result in another big bang. i accept this because it seems that everything that is clear to us is very similar. for example, atoms have a nucleus in which electrons revolve around. the moon revolves around the earth. the earth revolves around the sun along with all of the planets in our solar system. the sun revolves around the center of our galaxy. wouldn't it be safe to say that the galaxies in our universe revolve around the center of the universe. it is very hard to imagine such a thing in 3d space so i will use 2d space for now. galaxies could be represented as electrons and the center of the universe is represented by the nucleus of an atom. this would imply that the universe is finite, but spacetime is infinite. our universe is contained in space time.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll try to post something. First off, the light is so far away that it takes an extremely long time to get here. Also, the universe is so big that things don't appear to move at all in the sky. In fact, the Ancient Greeks believed the stars were 'fixed' and did not move at all!!!

Another thing. It is very very hard to visualize a universe like ours. In 2d, our universe is like a globe. (Remember this is not all space, just some portion of it.) The globe does not have depth. In other words, a 2d image of our universe would be like just the crust of earth. Its a plain but its curved. In order to view a 3d universe comparable to this one, you have to add another dimension of space. Try drawing that! It is easier to use 2d when thinking of my claim...

Most of the constellations we see are actually the stars in our own Milky Way Galaxy. We do not see individual stars from other galaxies quite as clear as the stars in ours. The stars revolve around the center of the Milky Way galaxy.

I have thought about this also Saiph. It just so happens that you are correct. The constellations may actually be light bended from out ragous places. Our galaxy may be completely different from what the sky looks like! All of these stars keep bending each other's light creating a final image that may not be what it really is!

Another thing is that when a star shines light, it goes everywhere and not just in one place. So light from one star could be all over the place warping around space time! We could be seeing 6 of the same star!!!!

Hmmmm... I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm beginning to lean towards the brane theory. It seems to have more hope than the big bang. That's just my opinion though.

P.S. - For those of you who haven't heard of the brane theory before, I will explain it very briefly. Basically it states that we live in four dimensional space on a higher dimensional membrane (11 dimensions to be exact). This membrane is just one of the many membranes that exist in the universe. Physicists believe that our universe was created when our membrane and another membrane collided with one another. Unlike the Big Bang theory, the laws of physics still work in the Brane Theory. They don't fall apart as they do in the Big Bang theory. That has been one of the major drawbacks with that theory, thus it has lead me to believe that the Brane Theory is correct.

P.P.S. - Has anyone seen something that looks like this before:

Strangeness (dss)m

or

TiD2

or

D2Od

If you have ever heard of any of these things (I don't even know what to call them), then please let me know!!!!

Just one thing to add Chris. I don't believe that the Big Bang is a singularity. I do not see the logic in that. A point of infinite density? I accept the Big Bang in a different way. more of like a very dense core, but not infinitely dense. Thus the laws of physics would hold together.

But I don't know too much about the brane theory. I am reading the Universe in a Nutshell so eventually I could discuss it with you. One other thing. God, if he exists, may have created us knowing that we would not be able to figure out the begining of the universe.

Unfortunately, physicists regard the big bang as a singularity. Actually, Stephen Hawking refers to the big bang as the "big bang singularity" in Universe in a Nutshell.

Unfortunatly I do not agree with Stephen Hawking on everything. What evidence does he have so show this? Maybe I am not talking about the big bang but something completely different. The birth of a universe could be like years in our calender. In other words, I do not believe that there was a big bang but there was something similar.

Moerus wrote:In the beginning there was nothing. And then this nothing exploded! How funny is that! Nothing that explodes becomes something!

The name 'Big Bang' is misleading, because it implies an explosion like a stick of dynamite going off.

The reason behind the Big Bang theory is this: Measuring the expansion rate of space indicated that there would have been a point in time when the amount of space in the universe was zero. It's not a theory proposed because it sounds most feasable, it's a theory that is directly the result of experimentation.

threewood14 wrote:atoms have a nucleus in which electrons revolve around.

Electrons don't revolve around the nucleus. Each has a certain region of space around the nucleus in which the probability of finding it is 100%. It does not have defined position, within this space. For any electron, this space covers the entire surface of the nucleus, hence the "orbiting electron" model seemed accurate for a while.

First off, I do believe that God created the universe from nothingness. The "Big Bang" and other theories are simply our limited understanding and explanation of what He did.

IIRC, Einstein's theory about the gravitational lens effect has already been proven by measurements of stars nearly occluded during solar eclipses.

To me, what we imagine as a perfectly straight line actually does have curvature, however slight. Just what do you use to measure a line trillions of light-years long with to verify it's position? The stars? We think about light traveling across the universe, I think of it as curving ever so slightly upward as it progresses, until at some point it reaches it's starting point (assuming no deflections due to gravity or other forces). An astronomically huge sphere as you describe.

If that's true, maybe one day we'll have some super Hubble telescope, and - if the speed of light was not limited - the first images would be of ourselves (from behind) peering into the universe.

Electrons don't revolve around the nucleus. Each has a certain region of space around the nucleus in which the probability of finding it is 100%. It does not have defined position, within this space. For any electron, this space covers the entire surface of the nucleus, hence the "orbiting electron" model seemed accurate for a while.

Maybe you are right ( and you probably are) but it doesn't really have anything to do what with I am trying to say. I was just pointing out that it seems natural for things to revolve around some central point or some 'thing' like the earth revolving around the sun.

Electrons don't revolve around the nucleus. Each has a certain region of space around the nucleus in which the probability of finding it is 100%. It does not have defined position, within this space. For any electron, this space covers the entire surface of the nucleus, hence the "orbiting electron" model seemed accurate for a while.

Maybe you are right ( and you probably are) but it doesn't really have anything to do what with I am trying to say. I was just pointing out that it seems natural for things to revolve around some central point or some 'thing' like the earth revolving around the sun.

The reason for that is that if you have an object moving perpendicularly to an force exerted upon it (like Earth to the Sun's gravitational pull), it can (and will) excellerate due to that force without changing its speed. What we have then is constant speed and constant excelleration (i.e. towards the Sun). This is a nice, stable situation, and therefore is seen throughout the Universe. (Including in Bhor's atomic model, that you refured to.)

threewood14 wrote:fire away people!

OK, the reason I brought the above into this is:

threewood14 wrote:wouldn't it be safe to say that the galaxies in our universe revolve around the center of the universe.

Only if there were a net force pulling them toward the centre of the Universe. There isn't one. In fact all galaxies are accelerating away from the centre of the Universe (net force = mass x acceleration).

According to General Relativity, if an object continued in a straight path for a long long time, it would eventually end up where is started. This is because space time is bent enough for this to happen. So why wouldnt that effect galaxies?

threewood14 wrote:According to General Relativity, if an object continued in a straight path for a long long time, it would eventually end up where is started. This is because space time is bent enough for this to happen. So why wouldnt that effect galaxies?

General Relativity doesn't say that if you move in a straight line you'll always return to your starting point. It says that the shape of space is warped (curved) by the presence of very large masses. i.e. That when a very large mass is present, it increases the amount of space in that region. In 2D this is represented by an otherwise-flat sheet having a lump in it (or an infinitely large lump in the case of a black hole). In 1D this could simply be represented by an otherwise-straight line being curved. Hence the statement that space-time is curved.
(This is the cause of gravity.)

Incidently, it is theoretically possible that one, or more, of the 3 dimensions we think of as the spacial dimensions are curled-up (i.e. go far enough in one direction and end up back where you started), but that's not a relativistic affect.

threewood14 wrote:wouldn't it be safe to say that the galaxies in our universe revolve around the center of the universe.

No. There is no "center of the universe". Imagine a balloon that is slowly expanding. The expanding surface of the balloon would be a passable 2-dimensional analogue for the expanding spacetime continuum of the universe. Now, where is the center of the surface of a balloon?

I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!

The balloon image was merely a 2D metaphor for the reality, which, as you say, is hard to visualize without using such analogies. What I said is still valid, though. If the Universe had a center, the heavenly bodies nearer the center would be moving away from each other less rapidly, and those further away more rapidly. If the Universe is somehow analogous to the surface of an expanding balloon, then all the bodies would be moving away from each other uniformly. The scientists say that all the heavenly bodies are expanding away from each other uniformly.

I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!

The Balloon analogy is used for the Big Bang which, I'm sorry to say, is starting to be tossed out right now. More people are now accepting the Brane theory because the laws of physics prevail. In the Big Bang, the universe started as a singularity which does not hold the laws of physics together.

But if you want to use the balloon analogy, my claim to this is a little different. The galaxies (this is 2D of course) start at the bottom of the balloon and not randomly around it. They would expand and expand. Eventually, the balloon would have expanded so much that the dots on the balloon would start to become closer to each other. They would go all the way around the balloon because there is so much expansion.

Just because the galaxies go around the center of the universe does not mean that the center of the universe forces the galaxies to go around it. There is no force that nothing can exert.

[/quote]The scientists say that all the heavenly bodies are expanding away from each other uniformly.

They are correct...for the current time frame. THe galaxies are still moving away from each other and have not begun to move towards each other yet. I believe that if man could survive for a much longer time, they would begin to see blue shifts in the galaxies rather than red.

I am not familiar with brane theory, so I can't comment on that. I'm merely spelling out the conventional interpretation of physics that I learned.

threewood14 wrote:But if you want to use the balloon analogy, my claim to this is a little different. The galaxies (this is 2D of course) start at the bottom of the balloon and not randomly around it. They would expand and expand. Eventually, the balloon would have expanded so much that the dots on the balloon would start to become closer to each other. They would go all the way around the balloon because there is so much expansion.

If your theory is assumed, then all the matter in the Universe would have at one time have been very close to one point of the surface of the balloon, which would have resulted in massive gravitational attraction of all the galaxies to each other, which according to GR would result in one huge whopping black hole. What overcame this massive gravitational force and caused the galaxies to move apart, if not the Big Bang?

Also, if your theory is correct, then either some of the galaxies must currently be nearer the "center" than others, or else the distribution of galaxies is a perfect ring. If some galaxies are further away than others from the "center", this would mean that some galaxies are moving away from the "center", and each other, at different rates, wouldn't it? The observational data that I am aware of doesn't seem to agree with this.

threewood14 wrote:They are correct...for the current time frame. The galaxies are still moving away from each other and have not begun to move towards each other yet. I believe that if man could survive for a much longer time, they would begin to see blue shifts in the galaxies rather than red.

This would still not prove your theory right. If the Universe is closed, that is, there is enough matter that the Big Bang will reverse into a Big Crunch, then the galaxies would still move towards each other eventually. The important point is not that the shift is blue or red, but that it shows that all galaxies are moving relative to each other uniformly.

I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!

What overcame this massive gravitational force and caused the galaxies to move apart, if not the Big Bang?

Something like the Big Bang but not quite. This just came to me. Maybe when a large amount of matter is enclosed in an extremely tight area, it atracts another brane. This would cause 2 branes to collide and an explosion...

either some of the galaxies must currently be nearer the "center" than others, or else the distribution of galaxies is a perfect ring.

Its the ring. They would all be an equal distance from the 'center' and an equal distance away from each other. They would also have equal speeds relative to the center.

important point is not that the shift is blue or red, but that it shows that all galaxies are moving relative to each other uniformly.

After they reach 'halfway', they would all begin to move towards each other uniformly.

P.S. I am a very religious character. I don't have any ideas how the 1st thing happened. I just believe in God. Yes I am Christian. So I accept that God plays a role in all of this. (And is probably laughing at us )

Does our current knowledge of the galaxies indicate that they are all in a ring-shaped formation?

I did not say that the galaxies are ring shaped. I merely said that the galaxies, whatever shape they take, are in a ring formation. Its almost like those cartoons where they blow out some smoke or a bubble in the shape of a ring; 'O.'

Does our current knowledge of the galaxies indicate that they are all in a ring-shaped formation?

I did not say that the galaxies are ring shaped. I merely said that the galaxies, whatever shape they take, are in a ring formation. Its almost like those cartoons where they blow out some smoke or a bubble in the shape of a ring; 'O.'

*sigh* Damn, you are stubborn. Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I said to save your theory? I asked if "they [the galaxies] are all in a ring-shaped formation". That does not mean I was asking if all individual galaxies are ring-shaped; they are obviously not, so why would I ask that? I was asking if all the galaxies in the Universe together form a gigantic ring. As far as I know, they do not. If that is correct, then I would think that this, together with the fact that all galaxies are moving away at a constant rate and the fact that this could only be accounted for by a total ring formation in your theory would disprove your theory.

I, Lex Llama, super genius, will one day rule this planet! And then you'll rue the day you messed with me, you damned dirty apes!

I was asking if all the galaxies in the Universe together form a gigantic ring. As far as I know, they do not.

I really have thought about this for quite a while. I now know what you are pointing out. If there was an explosion, matter would not just go out in a ring...correct? Metter would be spewed up and down. If you think about just that ring, it becomes one plane which is 2D. If you take into consideration the ups and downs, it adds another dimension to the universe making it 3D. Add time and you get 4D. Now in 2D the galaxies would be shown in a ring. However, in 3D, the galaxies would be all over the place if drawn. The matter going up would act strange after the explosion. I believe that each bit of matter after the explosion would go around the universe in a random path. In other words, its quantum mechanics. After that, gravity would take over and galaxies would form. Someday I'll draw it and get it somewhere on the web. Its gonna take forever though...especially because I need to finish some homework!